There is something about knowledge and Knowledge (Part 2)

There was a time when the pitfalls of ethnocentrism and anachronism were well recognised and avoided within evangelical circles. This understanding was effectively communicated by emphasising that Scripture is the word of God. The 66 books, in the autographs, are regarded as fully and verbally inspired by the Spirit of God, entirely free from error, and providentially preserved for us. From this foundational belief, we were instructed to teach Scripture as it was originally intended for its audience by the author.¹ Consequently, authorial intent was considered paramount, taking precedence over any interpretations or applications that might arise from the text.

However, anachronism continues to thrive, particularly in pulpits where there is a claim to preach the Bible expositionally²  by using the Scripture to address practical issues of our day as “authorial intent” for our day.³ We were introduced to the practice of preaching by understanding it as “the process of laying open the biblical text in such a way that the Holy Spirit’s intended meaning and accompanying power are brought to bear on the lives of contemporary listeners.”⁴ Yet, the emphasis on “intended meaning” appears to be diminishing, increasingly replaced by anachronistic interpretations. In this follow-up blog post addressing the concepts of knowledge and understanding, the aim is to clearly articulate Paul’s authorial intent in writing 1 Corinthians 8, allowing diligent students of the word of God to apply this insight to the lives of those whom God has called them to shepherd.

In the year 2010, during the first year of seminary, a familiar topic arose after some teaching: religious freedom. A question emerged that sparked curiosity and debate: Would Paul have taken offence at smokers? Despite the absence of specific references in the Bible, the conversation inevitably drifted toward Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. These two texts, while distinct, became conflated in the minds of the students, who sought to draw connections between them.

The lecturer, steadfast in his convictions, defended smoking as a legitimate religious liberty—an issue that, he argued, should inspire no disagreement among Christians. With an air of conviction, he suggested that if Paul were to stroll through the church grounds and encounter a smoker, he would either greet them warmly or walk past without a second glance. The crux of his argument was that those troubled by smoking ought to emulate Paul, who, in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, taught that he would not bind a believer’s conscience regarding such matters. To him, smoking was a grey area, one that held no concern for Paul.

Yet, amidst the discussion, a dissenting voice emerged. The student pondered the concept of grey areas, questioning whether such ambiguity truly existed in the eyes of God. This inquiry lingered, drawing the group into deeper contemplation. The debate was not merely about smoking; it was a reflection on the complexities of faith, conscience, and the nuances of religious liberty, each person navigating their understanding in search of clarity. Do grey areas exist in the eyes of God?

In the previous post, a promise was made to explore whether it is possible to engage in idolatrous and unbiblical events without legitimising them. More specifically, how does Paul address this question in 1 Corinthians 8? Does he treat it as a grey area? It is important to note that Paul’s discussion is on “things sacrificed to idols.”⁵ He addresses this question with unequivocal clarity. Although he states, “If food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again—ever, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble” (1 Corinthians 8:13), many still interpret his message as vague, grey, or ambiguous.

Collins rightly observes that Paul’s rhetorical conclusion indicates a refusal to eat meat sacrificed to idols. He argues that “the refusal to exercise one’s rights for the sake of another is not a limitation of freedom; it is the very foundation of freedom.”⁶ In other words, one has no right or choice but to limit one’s freedom, which may seem paradoxical, yet this limitation is precisely what constitutes true freedom. Thus, your freedom is established on the principle that you will not consume meat sacrificed to idols, and you do not deviate from that foundational commitment. Therefore, Paul does not leave 1 Corinthians 8 grey. His authorial intent is that he will not eat meat sacrificed to idols.

Paul warns against a type of knowledge that leads to arrogance, as exemplified by the Corinthians who prided themselves on their knowledge, believing it granted them the freedom to engage in practices such as eating food sacrificed to idols. However, Paul challenges this notion by highlighting that such knowledge, devoid of love, is ultimately harmful. It inflates the individual’s ego, leading to a sense of superiority and detachment from the community. True Knowledge, according to Paul, is characterised by love and humility. It is not merely about having the correct theological understanding but about how that knowledge is applied in our relationships with others. Paul emphasises that “if anyone loves God, he is known by Him” (1 Corinthians 8:3). This reciprocal relationship between knowing God and being known by Him forms the foundation of genuine Christian Knowledge.

Paul’s discussion on idolatry, practically speaking, extends beyond the literal worship of idols, identifying various forms of idolatry that plagued the Corinthians, such as personality cults, eloquence, immorality, and self-exaltation. These issues are not confined to the ancient world; they manifest in different ways in our contemporary context. Whether it is the veneration of public figures, the pursuit of eloquence over substance, or the prioritisation of personal desires over God’s will, idolatry remains a relevant challenge for believers today and Christians are not to participate in any form of it.